diag

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only diagnostic snapshot without destructive effects, and lists the returned information. Could benefit from mentioning rate limits or auth requirements, but for a simple diagnostic it is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence lists content, second sentence gives usage advice. Front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the essential: what the tool returns, its version, and a usage suggestion. Could specify output format (e.g., JSON), but the mention of 'ISO timestamp' implies a structured response. Complete enough for its simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's a 'runtime + storage diagnostic snapshot' and lists specific data included (node version, platform, storage path/type/size, entity+relation counts, ISO timestamp). This distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like 'health' (simpler) or 'graph_size' (single metric).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly recommends it as a 'good first call when something feels off', giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools for specific diagnostic needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.